God(s)

  • Anora^una_Ilorn
  • Anora^una_Ilorn's Avatar
  • Guest
23 Jul 2007 19:11 #4533 by Anora^una_Ilorn
Replied by Anora^una_Ilorn on topic God(s)
I personally believe in the Tao, which in this modern age is the Force. I tried to incorporate my belief in multiple gods into this belief but quickly got stuck in the feeling that i was still looking outside of myself and the world for the answers, when instead i needed to look everywhere. I do not believe in any god but could the force itself not be a god? It is hard for one to believe in one thing that has very little proof and not believe in another. I have gotten the distinction that the Taoist believe that the Tao is a free willed energy, much like wind near a cliff. It can simply go up and over, help to bend a tree or plant into something beautiful or grotesque, or carve a whole in the side of the cliff. You may say we are the cliff, the tree, or a particle in the wind but in truth they are all the same thing, they are all made up of matter and energy. So you can call the Force God, but as for praying i believe that is the mind working with the force, not making it do what you want to do but requesting it. I believe that the force works like a door. You can push and push, demand it to bend to your will, and nothing will happen. But if you work with the door, if you simply turn the handle and nudge, the door swings open.

Another saying i remember is from the movie Michael (John Travolta):
The Sun had an argument with the North
Wind. Who was smarter? Stronger?
The North Wind pointed out a man walking down the street.
\"I can make that man take his coat off and you can't.\"
\"I'll take that bet,\" said the Sun.
The North Wind blew and the more that wind blew, the tighter that
man held that coat around himself.
And then the Sun came out and smiled and it became warmer, and the man took off his coat.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
23 Jul 2007 19:18 #4534 by Jon
Replied by Jon on topic God(s)
Unfortunately, Br.Dhagon, they did not take another insect but chose that one. It has become a fact. What relevance we put on something does not change its inherent function, no matter how much we argue about it. And again I underline the inter-relational functionality of creation shows the brilliance of the divine plan.

The author of the TOTJO simple and solemn oath, the liturgy book, holy days, the FAQ and the Canon Law. Ordinant of GM Mark and Master Jestor.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • tsukimaster
  • tsukimaster's Avatar Topic Author
  • Guest
23 Jul 2007 19:50 #4541 by tsukimaster
Replied by tsukimaster on topic God(s)
Jon,

I'm not sure I wish to give you my thoughts on why I believe God does not exist as I do not wish to change your beliefs, they are yours and not for me to meddle with. BUt if you like, you and I can speak on this some more...

I suppose at this point I should clarify my initial topic.. AND restate my request for PROOF.

Belief is one thing and impossibe to argue... but substantial tangible proof is another. I am only iterested in any tangible proof of an independant supreme being, if it is possible to provide.

I began this topic because I was hoping that there might be another view point other than those I already have heard or experienced myself.

hhmmm...

Rick

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Twsoundsoff
  • Twsoundsoff's Avatar
  • Guest
23 Jul 2007 20:06 #4544 by Twsoundsoff
Replied by Twsoundsoff on topic God(s)
tsukimaster wrote:

Jon,

I'm not sure I wish to give you my thoughts on why I believe God does not exist as I do not wish to change your beliefs, they are yours and not for me to meddle with. BUt if you like, you and I can speak on this some more...

I suppose at this point I should clarify my initial topic.. AND restate my request for PROOF.

Belief is one thing and impossibe to argue... but substantial tangible proof is another. I am only iterested in any tangible proof of an independant supreme being, if it is possible to provide.

I began this topic because I was hoping that there might be another view point other than those I already have heard or experienced myself.

hhmmm...

Rick


So you don't beleive in Physics?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
23 Jul 2007 20:21 #4548 by Jon
Replied by Jon on topic God(s)
Why is it very often left up to believers to proove the existance of God? Another challenge could be, proove that God doesn`t exist.

The author of the TOTJO simple and solemn oath, the liturgy book, holy days, the FAQ and the Canon Law. Ordinant of GM Mark and Master Jestor.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Marela
  • Marela's Avatar
  • Guest
23 Jul 2007 20:29 #4550 by Marela
Replied by Marela on topic God(s)
Jon wrote: Why is it very often left up to believers to proove the existance of God? Another challenge could be, proove that God doesn`t exist.

Yes, but God to some people is a theory, a concept. And in science one usually prooves the validity of a theory, hence, prove the existence of God (not the other way round).

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
23 Jul 2007 20:37 #4551 by Jon
Replied by Jon on topic God(s)
What I am getting at is that just as it is diffucult to come up with tangible evidence of God`s existence so is it to come up with evidence that God does not exist.

The author of the TOTJO simple and solemn oath, the liturgy book, holy days, the FAQ and the Canon Law. Ordinant of GM Mark and Master Jestor.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Twsoundsoff
  • Twsoundsoff's Avatar
  • Guest
23 Jul 2007 20:53 #4552 by Twsoundsoff
Replied by Twsoundsoff on topic God(s)
Marela wrote:

Jon wrote: Why is it very often left up to believers to proove the existance of God? Another challenge could be, proove that God doesn`t exist.

Yes, but God to some people is a theory, a concept. And in science one usually prooves the validity of a theory, hence, prove the existence of God (not the other way round).


As i've already stated, That method of discernment (the scientific method) doesnt hold up to its own method. Is anybody reading this stuff?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • Marela
  • Marela's Avatar
  • Guest
23 Jul 2007 21:33 #4553 by Marela
Replied by Marela on topic God(s)
Twsoundsoff wrote:
The second realization we should get from the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that since all matter and energy tend irreversibly toward maximum randomness, and since the universe is not maximally random today, it cannot have been tending that direction forever. It has only been tending that way for a limited time. This means that matter and energy are not eternal; there was a time when they did not exist. This means that there must be something other than matter and energy that is eternal, for nothing comes from nothing, and if nothing exists but matter and energy, then before matter and energy existed there was nothing.


There was a time when they did not exist? Well, another school of thought proposes the fact that the universe exists, just that, it exists, it IS. They propose that this isn't the only universe, that before this one, there was a multitude, one before the other. And after us, there will be more. Matter and energy just change. Now, how did the very first universe get created?

I don't know.

And yes, it is equally difficult to proove the existance of God, as it is to proove non-existance.

Maybe the very fact that we can discuss this/reflect upon this prooves existance?

I don't know. And I have an inkling that it is impossible to proove either way. Maybe it is just like science where some theories cannot be proven right or wrong, they just make sense for the stage science is in at that time. And get revised later on. Maybe it boils down to, does the existance of God make sense?

YES!

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
23 Jul 2007 22:53 #4554 by Jon
Replied by Jon on topic God(s)
The Quinquae viae, or Five Ways, are five proofs of the existence of God summarized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae.

1. The argument of the unmoved mover (ex motu).
Some things are moved.
Everything that is moved is moved by a mover.
An infinite regress of movers is impossible.
Therefore, there is an unmoved mover from whom all motion proceeds.
This mover is what we call God.
2. The argument of the first cause (ex causa).
Some things are caused.
Everything that is caused is caused by something else.
An infinite regress of causation is impossible.
Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all caused things.
This causer is what we call God.
3. The argument of contingency (ex contingentia).
Many things in the universe may either exist or not exist. Such things are called contingent beings.
It is impossible for everything in the universe to be contingent, as nothing can come of nothing, and if traced back eventually there must have been one thing from which all others have occurred.
Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent on any other being(s).
This being is what we call God.
4. The argument of degree (ex gradu).
Various perfections may be found in varying degrees throughout the universe.
These degrees of perfections assume the existence of the perfections themselves.
5. The argument of \"design\" (ex fine).
All natural bodies in the world act for ends.
These objects are in themselves unintelligent.
To act for ends is characteristic of intelligence.
Therefore, there exists an intelligent being which guides all natural bodies to their ends.
This being we call God.

The author of the TOTJO simple and solemn oath, the liturgy book, holy days, the FAQ and the Canon Law. Ordinant of GM Mark and Master Jestor.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: RexZero